INFORMATION & BROADCASTING MINISTER L.K. ADVANI 

‘I Am Not Happy with The Pattern of Newspaper Ownership’

Transindia: Mr. Advani, many people feel today that the Janata Government’s image is quite clean, and that it is innately decent, but that its performance has been quite poor. Would you comment on that?  

L.K. Advani: This impression is erroneous, though if people hold that impression, I wouldn’t blame them because we came into office in a situation in which the people expected wonders from us. And I would not deny that we have worked no wonders so far, except that we have fulfilled all our political pledges, in the sense that the mandate on which we came in. to quote JP, was a choice between democracy and authoritarianism, and we have certainly ushered in democracy again. We believe that a government with a sense of purpose, a government with elementary decency, a government which is honest — such a government. despite the differences we may have in emphasis on economic issues. should be able to deliver the goods. Even though it has taken some time for us to reach the stage of take-off on the economic front, we are confident that things will start moving now. The first few months have naturally been taken up by political Issues, and the fusion of the constituents of the Janata Party has also claimed a lot of our attention. 

Transindia: The biggest problem today seems to be the necessity for effecting emotional integration with in the Janata Party, and this has tarnished the image of the Party. and its performance. 

L.K. Advani: Tarnishing of our image, yes; but not of our performance. So far as our image is concerned, it has certainly been affected by representatives of the Party seeming to speak in different voices. But so far as the government is concerned, there has been no problem. We have functioned as one single team. I do not think there has been any issue on which there have been sharp differences. But as I said. we have come in on the basis of certain commitments, such as the Compulsory Deposit Scheme, and the question of bonus. We have realized that such moves will have an inflationary effect, and we have realized our options. 

Transindia: Observers have noted that the Janata government has hardly departed from the old postures in foreign policy and industrial policy. Why has the ‘total revolution’ turned out to be an almost total adherence to past values?

L.K. Advani: I do concede that so far as foreign policy is concerned. there may not be much of a departure. But foreign policy was not an issue at all in the elections. But so far as industrial policy and the economy are concerned I would say that it would make a world of difference if one shifted the emphasis from centralization to decentralization. from heavy industry to small industries, and from industry to agriculture. In England, too, for instance, there are few differences between the manner in which the Labor governments functioned and the manner in which the Conservative governments functioned. In any bipartisan polity the differences are bound to diminish. inevitably. But I feel that after a year has passed. the people here will be able to see a visible difference between the approach of this government on the economic front and that of the last government. We do realize the inflationary effects of some of our economic measures. but we felt that going back on our pledges would cost us much more politically and economically than if we adhered to them. 

Transindia: Mr. Advani, the Press in India has not really come out of the shell it had withdrawn into during the Emergency. People also feel that the Press still holds the government in some sort of awe, and that it is afraid of being too critical of the government’s policies. 

L.K. Advani: If this awe arises out of anything the present government has done, it is most unfortunate and I would personally like to erase it if I can. But it may be in certain cases that people who have been very much aligned with the last government, which is in disgrace not only with the present government but with society in general. may be feeling that speaking out in defense of what they did in the past may not be acceptable today. The fact is that if one is talking about Indira Gandhi and Sanjay Gandhi today. one is bringing up something that is taboo, even though some people may rightly feel that there was a lot of good in Mrs. Gandhi. But I would like that the awe that the government is normally held in by the Press in India should be erased. 

Transindia: Mr. Advani, the question of monopolistic ownership of the Press had assumed big proportions during the last government’s tenure. After your government assumed office, there have been instances of a return to the old style of functioning by newspaper owners, of exploitation of journalists. Would you comment on that?  

L.K. Advani: There were some papers that had supported us vehemently during the Emergency, at great risk to themselves. Perhaps on that account, they expected us to be soft toward them, to shut our eyes toward their lapses after the Emergency. But we didn’t do that, and because we didn’t do that they grew more unhappy with us. We have been strict even with regard to them. Though we appreciate what they did during the Emergency, it doesn’t justify their not being fair and just to their employees. We do understand that there are certain in-built constraints on the Press because of the pattern of ownership in the country. I am not happy with it, and I would like to see the pattern change. But as I have said earlier, all the studies conducted so far do not suggest any viable alternative to the present pattern. I am in search of one. and I hope before long that this government will be able to find one. 

Transindia: Talking about films, you have expressed yourself in favor of a weeding out of undesirable influences in filmmaking in India. How would you go about seeing that such sober influences as are necessary are introduced? 

L.K. Advani: So far as films are concerned. I think the Censor Board’s negative functioning, coupled with the positive contribution that can be made by the Film Finance Corporation, are the main instruments that the Government has at its disposal today, to ensure that films not only provide entertainment to society, but also serve a social purpose. Some filmmakers of course would like us to give as much freedom to them as to the press. In the Indian context. any move of that sort would have a very injurious effect on the social and moral health of our society.

Transindia: Would the autonomization of television and radio in India solve all the problems of these media? 

L.K. Advani: Not by itself. I do not regard autonomization as the panacea for all the ills that beset these media. During the Emergency. I have known of so-called autonomous bodies that have been far more subservient to the government’s desires than the government’s departments themselves. 

Transindia: Is there any move on the part of your government to rehabilitate the pressmen who suffered during the Emergency? 

L.K. Advani: It’s a difficult proposition, much as I would like to do it. and I appreciate the basis on which the question has been framed. I would say that the Emergency affected not merely the pressmen, but a very large section of the people. and I know people personally whose families have been ruined completely. The pressmen are relatively better off. and they would be able to find places for themselves here and there. But if I think of rehabilitating or recompensing people who suffered during the Emergency, it’s a fantastic proposition, and I do not know whether the government can undertake it. Certain things which could be done by sheer executive orders, we have already done. We have re-accredited disaccredited journalists. We have restored accommodation for those journalists who were deprived of theirs. We have restored presses that had been sealed or seized back to their owners. We have restored advertisements to papers that had been blacklisted. We have also repealed the Prevention of Publication of Objectionable Matter Act, and the Feroze Gandhi Act on parliamentary reporting has been restored. We have revived the Press Council. 

Transindia: Mr. Advani, your statement earlier on that the Press in India had crawled when it had only been asked to bend has upset many journalists. The argument is that journalists are in a vocation like any other, and that for survival, they had to toe their owners’ lines. and that it was only the bigger journalists who could have stood up to censorship.  

L.K. Advani: You will recall that when I made that statement, I said that there was a handful of journalists who stood up to censorship. I bow to them, I salute them. A large section of pressmen just fell in line. They preferred to conform. I don’t blame them either. But I am very unhappy about those, also a few who, when they were asked to bow or bend. were willing to crawl. I accept that the bulk of pressmen had no option. I believe, as a journalist myself. that those few that I had criticized had an obligation to their profession to stand up to censorship. I know of a few journalists who had been bitter critics of JP’s movement all along—persons like Romesh Thapar and Nikhil Chakravarty—who nevertheless as journalists felt that they could not bow to censorship.  

Transindia: The proposed newspool of Third World Countries has been severely criticized by Western governments as being against freedom of the Press. Why have you lent your support to this move? 

L.K. Advani: In the context of Emergency, in the context of India drifting toward becoming a closed society, in the context of the onslaught of the Western news agencies, the earlier criticism was justified. But in the present context. I view this Non-Aligned Newspool as firstly. part of the non aligned aspect of our foreign policy, and secondly, as a news agency which supplements all the news that we get from other countries; it doesn’t seek to supplant other news agencies. I also feel that it will in a way provide a fresh approach to collection and dissemination of news in the Third World. 

Transindia: Why has there been delay in repealing the 42nd Amendment on the part of your government? 

L.K. Advani: We are quite concerned about the 42nd Amendment, and I think by the time Parliament convenes next. things would have crystallized. I can tell you frankly that with regard to the 42nd Amendment. The option before us was either to move a Bill seeking to amend the Constitution, just for the sake of form, and to fail, or to see that we get it through. And I believe that we can get it through, at least in respect of all the obnoxious features of the 42nd Amendment and its 59 clauses. In those respects if the Congress says “yes”, why should we not do it? Why should we try only to score a point, and to put them totally in the wrong? There has been no delay because of our hesitation. I have already spoken to them informally, and now formal discussions will take place. And we are about to identify such of those clauses that alter the basic structure of the Constitution. and sabotage and subvert its democratic content. 

Transindia: Is your government thinking of bringing in legislation to see that the freedom of the press is not taken away with such case as it was in 1975? 

L.K. Advani: I think once the obnoxious provisions in the 42nd Amendment are removed, for instance the clause that says that in order to implement the Directive Principles, any law, even if it violates a fundamental right, would be all right. the problem will be solved These are things that destroy the freedom of the press, because then freedom of expression, as a fundamental right. becomes meaningless. If we remove such clauses, then freedom of the press will be totally assured. But our experience has shown that the best of laws cannot be an adequate defense if the government itself is not willing to adhere to the norms of democracy, and if the press itself is not willing to stand up to repression.